Hello guys from US, can you please explain what this Occupy wall street movement is all about. I just watched some videos on youtube and I am still confused about who started the protest in the first place and what are their demands.

ocalhoun

metalfreek wrote:

I am still confused about who started the protest in the first place and what are their demands.

Generally, I think they're just as confused about that as you are.
Nobody knows, not even them.

They trend generally left-ish, and they're upset with the government, the corporations, and especially the banks and wall street... Made up largely of disenfranchised younger people who had been raised in times of great prosperity, only to find themselves trying to make their way in the world during a time of recession.

Beyond that, I don't think you can say much that would apply to the group as a whole. There are different elements within it with more specific goals, but none of them has been able to take control of the whole movement and define it's goals as theirs.

coolclay

Ocalhoun summed it up well. I also wanted to add that even though it currently consists of a huge array of political sentiment and reasons. It was primarily initiated by extreme leftist groups such as Adbuster (from Canada) and NY Communities for Change (previously known as ACORN). The majority of the protests can be boiled down to one primary doctrine and that is that the government only cares about the top 1% of Americans that hold the majority of the wealth. Some protesters are anarchists, some are communists, some are left wingers, some are right wingers, with no collective goal in mind except making the government notice the rest of us.

Just lots of unhappy (or unemployed) people trying to make a difference.

Thank you guys for the insight. This is probably the first protest that I think was not covered well by News media I guess. The news about Occupy Wall Street is very very less. I still remember the news of Golf uprising coming every half hour or so but this one is very hard to see. Its quiet amazing that CNN (only US news channel I have access to) is not covering things well enough in their own country but were very forward in covering golf riot and all. Strange.

deanhills

metalfreek wrote:

Thank you guys for the insight. This is probably the first protest that I think was not covered well by News media I guess. The news about Occupy Wall Street is very very less. I still remember the news of Golf uprising coming every half hour or so but this one is very hard to see. Its quiet amazing that CNN (only US news channel I have access to) is not covering things well enough in their own country but were very forward in covering golf riot and all. Strange.

I think it would be difficult for the media to cover it in a rational way as there is no real central organization to the movement and most of it is haphazard and unplanned.

ocalhoun

metalfreek wrote:

Thank you guys for the insight. This is probably the first protest that I think was not covered well by News media I guess.

Well, the mainstream media is largely a part of what they are protesting.
It's unsurprising that the media have neglected to report on it much. They're still hoping that if it is ignored and denied media attention, it will go away on its own.

(We no longer have a free press. The press is free from government coercion, yes... but it is almost entirely controlled by corporate coercion... and as such, most of the press will be forced to do whatever they can to fight any anti-corporate movement.)

deanhills

ocalhoun wrote:

(We no longer have a free press. The press is free from government coercion, yes... but it is almost entirely controlled by corporate coercion... and as such, most of the press will be forced to do whatever they can to fight any anti-corporate movement.)

I didn't see that one, but you're obviously correct. This has to be it. Could also be why the media seems to be focusing on the idiotic parts of the protest rather than some of the very rational people that are camping out as well.

furtasacra

Here's a tidy summary of what Occupy is about:

Quote:

Occupy Wall Street is an ongoing demonstration opposing negative corporate influence over U.S. politics and a lack of legal repercussions over the global financial crisis. The aim of the demonstration is to begin a sustained occupation of Wall Street, the financial district of New York City, to draw attention to Wall Street’s misdeeds and call for structural economic reforms. Organizers intend for the occupation to last "as long as it takes to meet our demands." Demands are in the process of being negotiated and developed.

Personally, I think it would be more effective to "occupy" the Senate and Congress, and the local offices of senators and congressmen, so that they can't get to work without running a gauntlet of angry, frustrated, unemployed people. It's THEIR fault that Wall Street was allowed to run amok without regulations to prevent fraud and abuse, or any serious consequences for unethical behavior.

ocalhoun

furtasacra wrote:

Personally, I think it would be more effective to "occupy" the Senate and Congress, and the local offices of senators and congressmen, so that they can't get to work without running a gauntlet of angry, frustrated, unemployed people. It's THEIR fault that Wall Street was allowed to run amok without regulations to prevent fraud and abuse, or any serious consequences for unethical behavior.

There's no point in trying to distinguish between the two. They're two parts of the same whole.

And in either case, simply protesting will not create any profound changes. The only way it can succeed in fixing their problems is if it sparks a change in attitudes nationwide.

Trying to blame wall street OR the government will always ignore parts of the situation, and be an incomplete view.
To blame:
Wall Street (and the rest of corporate America) - For being the corrupters, caring only for their own greed.
The Government - For being the corrupted, not being able to resist the temptations of campaign donations with strings attached.
The People - For not noticing, not caring, and not putting a stop to it while they still (theoretically) could.
The Corporations (again) - For fostering a shallow, materialistic culture which resulted in the people's ignorance, apathy, and inaction.
The People (again) - For embracing that shallow, materialistic influence, to the abandonment of their ideals and their civic responsibilities.
The Early Government (sort of again) - For not being able to foresee this weakness of the system, and not putting much in place to prevent it.

Any change must start with the people.
The corporations cannot start it: any action not profit-oriented would be breach of trust for them.
The government cannot start it: any intention to correct the problem would bar a politician from being elected under current conditions.
Only the people are free to act... but in order to do so, they need to awaken from their apathetic materialism. (In this, we're lucky to live in a democratic country, otherwise the people would also be powerless, except for their capacity to revolt.)

So, any movement that hopes to fix the problem must focus on awakening the people. Making them realize the severity of the problem, and (most difficult) motivating them to take the drastic action needed to fix the problem.

deanhills

furtasacra wrote:

Personally, I think it would be more effective to "occupy" the Senate and Congress, and the local offices of senators and congressmen, so that they can't get to work without running a gauntlet of angry, frustrated, unemployed people. It's THEIR fault that Wall Street was allowed to run amok without regulations to prevent fraud and abuse, or any serious consequences for unethical behavior.

I think all of the sit-ins need to be better organized and managed. For that to happen one will probably need some financial backing, and that is probably where the problem really lies. As it is in the interest of the rich to maintain the current status quo. They have both Government and the media in their pockets.

Omif

b]Thank you guys for the insight.[/b] This is probably the first protest that I think was not covered well by News media I guess.[/quote]

Well, the mainstream media is largely a part of what they are protesting.
It's unsurprising that the media have neglected to report on it much. They're still hoping that if it is ignored and denied media attention, it will go away on its own.

(We no longer have a free press. The press is free from government coercion, yes... but it is almost entirely controlled by corporate coercion... and as such, most of the press will be forced to do whatever they can to fight any anti-corporate movement.)[/quote]

What do they suggest? Specific changes in the system as a whole?
Only protesting against something does not change things, at the best only some minot issues will be addressed by politicians.

ocalhoun

Omif wrote:

What do they suggest? Specific changes in the system as a whole?
Only protesting against something does not change things, at the best only some minot issues will be addressed by politicians.

I'm sure many individual members of the movement have ideas about exactly how things should be changed, but there is no overreaching agreement within the whole movement about exactly what should be done about it.